Edge EBT thread

[bstar1]

Should APNs include the BIK from the loan ?

I'm appealing this with HMRC and will get a decision in October.

[SimonJones]

Apn and Clso

Hi,
Has anyone received Apn's with a much lower figure but the CLSO with a much higher figures?

[Underbase]

Hi,
Has anyone received Apn's with a much lower figure but the CLSO with a much higher figures?

I think if you are talking total figure. Then the answer should be yes for everyone. The APN doesn't include IHT (some settlements do, some don't seem to) and interest. Also sometimes the loan figures are just different to, I think for the loan figures to be the same you would have to believe that HMRC have a clue what they are doing.

[Tweedle]

Hi,
Has anyone received Apn's with a much lower figure but the CLSO with a much higher figures?

My CLSO figures of the tax "owed" are, in 5 out of 6 years higher - by up to 250% .
This is just on the basic re-calculation of tax on the loan, regardless of interest and other extras on the SO.
Even though the loan amounts are explicitly stated on my P11ds for all years, which I have copies of. It would seem HMRC have lost them or not bothered to look at them, or forgotten how to read them.
I can't believe HMRC seriously expect anyone to pay the SO when they've clearly made up random figures many times greater then the original assessments and the subsequent APNs,
But worse still is that we're obliged to pay the APNs which equally prove how HMRC are incapable of performing consistent calculations using the information in their possession.

[gettingangry]

I'm appealing this with HMRC and will get a decision in October.

The answer is NO. The BIK is due to the loans. If they say they are not loans there can be no BIK.

I had one APN figure reduced because the APN dept realised it was an error. Although they didn't bother on 2 other APNs - which just about sums up the incompetence of these people. However, the Settlement dept re-issued figures still including the BIK - called them to get it removed - but they are even more incompetent and struggled to understand the issue. Waiting for a reply.

[SimonJones]

My CLSO figures of the tax "owed" are, in 5 out of 6 years higher - by up to 250% .
This is just on the basic re-calculation of tax on the loan, regardless of interest and other extras on the SO.
Even though the loan amounts are explicitly stated on my P11ds for all years, which I have copies of. It would seem HMRC have lost them or not bothered to look at them, or forgotten how to read them.
I can't believe HMRC seriously expect anyone to pay the SO when they've clearly made up random figures many times greater then the original assessments and the subsequent APNs,
But worse still is that we're obliged to pay the APNs which equally prove how HMRC are incapable of performing consistent calculations using the information in their possession.

Just to be clear, the income tax due on Apn is showing ridiculously low for 2 years, but correct for the 3rd year. However, on the Clso, the income tax element only (without the interest and IHT as this is separate) is showing 7 times higher than the income tax on Apn - I would have expected the income tax amount on Apn and Clso to be the same (Please note, I'm purely referring to the income tax amount on the Clso and not the interest and IHT). I wanted to know whether this can happen!

[SimonJones]

I'm appealing this with HMRC and will get a decision in October.

Can you please clarify this BIK.
My calculations for the 2008/2009 has BIK on both the left and on the right hand side.
Are we saying that the BIK should be removed from the right hand side of the calculations?

[bstar1]

Can you please clarify this BIK.
My calculations for the 2008/2009 has BIK on both the left and on the right hand side.
Are we saying that the BIK should be removed from the right hand side of the calculations?

I think it should

[webberg]

I think it should

I'd agree.

Please note that there is NO CORRELATION between APN and CLSO values.

the former is a payment on account of a final liability that is today unknown and is essentially a guess from HMRC who appear to use or ignore intelligence they are in possession of, in an entirely random manner.

(I'm not prepared to to join in the various conspiracy theories around this).

the latter is an interim value HMRC want to settle the taxes they have bothered thinking about, whilst they consider various ways to increase the final amount due. It includes an interest calculation based on an analysis that the loan is income of an unspecified type. Given that income subject to tax has to fall within a certain piece of legislation which then determines the due date of tax and therefore the interest start date, that in itself is potentially difficult.

[Tweedle]

I'd agree.

Please note that there is NO CORRELATION between APN and CLSO values.

I think we all have proof of the above, but don't you think there SHOULD be...aren't they ultimately talking about the same EBT loans or income, don't they all have access to the same information and shouldn't a calculation of tax owed in HMRCs opinion be consistent, however they are trying to demand it??